Someone back several posts mentioned Cessna. The problem with the Corvalis line is, surprise, build cost. The Cirrus was originally designed to be a low cost plane. I seem to recall that the original SR20 sold for $180K. This led to cost cutting which in some cases was excessive; hence the heavy use of Velcro and double sided tape. It meant that the flap hinges were cut from stock metal plate. It also meant that control surfaces were aluminum since that is easy and cheap when the shape is a simple bend. A Cirrus is not all fiberglass. Now look at the Corvalis nee Columbia nee Lancair Certified. The entire plane including the control surfaces is carbon fiber. The flap hinges are a work of art. This is Lance Neibauer's dream of a certified plane. The problem is all of this makes it expensive with little performance benefit over simpler techniques. When Cessna was about to buy Columbia, Cirrus made a bid. That allowed Cirrus to get a look at the company's books. I doubt Cirrus ever intended to actually buy Columbia. They just wanted to drive up the price for Cessna and get a peak at production costs and technology. It will take a major effort for Cessna to make the Corvalis cost competitive and Cirrus knows it.

As we think of how Beech might improve its products and be more competitive, the engineer in me comes out and I want to remind people that real engineering means engineering to a target market which means engineering to a price point. I consider the Camry class of automobiles the toughest engineering challenge in the world. A Ferrari is much easier to design since the cost tradeoffs are fewer. As for planes, a good blog (warning: he is a Cirrus engineer) is this one. I particularly like the carbon fiber vs. fiberglass discussion from November 1, 2011. If you look through the blog you will find a Pareto chart of service issues and a discussion of how they are being attacked. The fuel sensor posts and the unforeseen problems encountered are a good insight into what the world of engineering involves. It will also show you why a 2010 Cirrus isn't the same as a 2013 Cirrus.

I don't think Beech needs a big engineering staff but they do need a few exceptional engineers who understand the difference between engineering and science and what it means to design to a target market and a price point. Maybe they have them now. I hope they do. Competition is good. For those who are unhappy with the pro Cirrus posts by some in this thread I want to say that I think the posts are well meant in that the posters want to jostle Beech into attacking the market. To those flying an older Beech product remember that, when it was made, it was made by a company determined to be the best. Just look at how the BE35 series changed from year to year when Beech was at its best. I think most of us want to see a return to that version of Beechcraft.

Funny guy

Almost. But it would only take 300k to make a 70's a36 totally tricked out and as good as a new one, not 800k. And it would depreciate slower I think.
Buy a TBone and with a little love you will make money.

This thread got me looking at Cirrus again. It is a awesome ride and should have great utility and safety benefits. But damn that asymmetrical panel just looks cheesy to me.

Another thing you have to ask yourself is ''does beechcraft really want to compete with cirrus?" Beech makes their money off of the King Air line. I can guarantee that when beech was sitting at the table during bankruptcy no one said ''we need to focus on the bonanza line.'' They seem to just do enough to say they have a dog in fight in single engine piston and thats it. Sure they redesigned the interior and put a new AC. That required next to no R&D but that is it. The bonanza will not single handedly save beechcraft, if it even needs ''saving.'' They reorganized shed the jet line hopefully they did enough to lower their overhead to stay alive.

It does make one wonder if it would make sense for Beech to spin off the Bonanza line. Might be a way to foster some new technology and life into it.

It might take that to makeit profitable.

Which company do you think is more likely to be lurking this thread right now, Beech or Cirrus?

Cirrus, they seem to care.

Tim

Unfortunately you may be right. Being a single engine piston guy, I would like to see more competition and the innovation it would bring. Oh well.

Wrong. Unsubstantiated. Common misconceptions....but wrong.

And what will BT say when Beech announces a composite aircraft?

I remember a early A36 that has 1441 UL with out any GW mods, does all this stuff need to be so heavy? Imagine taking that airplane and if it could have all the GW mods you be around 1900 UL in a single. Full fuel 112 you would have about 1200 left. 6 200 pound people.

IRS, TSA, DHS, FAA.....

Tim, if only. I own one of those planes. All the GW mods you're talking about, like TN, tips, A/C, TKS, GPS radios, glass panels, GEMs, etc. would take the empty weight to 2650-2850 lbs, depending on which model you started with. You're not going to upgrade an older Bo with these mods and end up with a plane that can carry 6 200 lb passengers. The opposite is true. You'll end up with a plane that can't carry 4 200 lb passengers, certainly not with full fuel and any baggage. Your mileage will NOT vary.

Now, Cirrus managed to fix their useful load problem, but as the recent event with the failed chute demonstrates, they still have some way to go with fixing their pilots .

Funny coming from a person on a Beech forum.

The differences in accident rates among the various aircraft brands per hundred thousand hours of flight is pretty slight..